X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Message-ID:	<51DE00E7.2000406@sonic.net>
Date:	Wed, 10 Jul 2013 17:48:39 -0700
From:	Dave Curtis <davecurtis AT sonic DOT net>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121028 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] any real issue with anonymous pins?
References:	<51DDCDF5 DOT 7000807 AT sonic DOT net> <D608FEA9-14C9-452A-89C0-D53FCFC233E2 AT noqsi DOT com> <51DDE098 DOT 5050209 AT sonic DOT net> <09AE324C-33E7-4125-A154-DF3222007238 AT noqsi DOT com>
In-Reply-To:	<09AE324C-33E7-4125-A154-DF3222007238@noqsi.com>
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com

On 07/10/2013 03:45 PM, John Doty wrote:
> On Jul 10, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Dave Curtis wrote:
>
>>> Slotting requires "numslots", "slot", and "pinseq". Some gnetlist back ends also need "pinseq".
>>>    All that slotting stuff is one of the big motivators for 'correct by construction' symbols.
> Well, beware that it's impossible to be 'correct by construction' for all flows. For example, the use of "pinseq" by slotting is incompatible with its use in the spice and spice-sdb back ends. My experimental spice-noqsi back end avoids this by having other ways to handle pin sequencing.

Well, in my personal use case, slotting is a must-have, and spice is something that I used once in the 1970's and haven't touched since.  So whatever pinseq bugs are left in my symbols w.r.t. spice someone else will have to fix :)

-dave

>
> John Doty              Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
> http://www.noqsi.com/
> jpd AT noqsi DOT com
>
>
>

- Raw text -